Despite failing to comply with state law, the Clark County Council voted 3-2 to retain its mining overlay in anticipation of an upcoming appeals case.
In 2022, the council approved an overlay permitting Granite Construction to mine for aggregate on a 330.95-acre property in Chelatchie. However, the Washington Growth Management Hearings Board (GMHB) ruled last year that the overlay violated the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), stating the county must provide an environmental impact statement (EIS) before granting approval. As a result, the county risks losing eligibility for various state grants and short-term loans. The Washington State Court of Appeals is currently reviewing the decision, however.
In August, the council scheduled a public hearing for Tuesday, Oct. 22, to discuss the potential repeal of the overlay after staff warned that noncompliance could cost the county $1.3 million annually in clean water grants, amounting to $6.4 million over five years. During the public hearing, county staff noted that a $3.5 million low-interest loan for a wetland restoration project was secured by recharacterizing one of its facilities. If the county remains noncompliant, it will still lose out on $2.9 million in state grants and loans for clean water initiatives.
During last week’s meeting, staff informed the council that oral hearings for the appeals case are scheduled for Jan. 9, 2025. Council Chair Gary Medvigy stated that the county would strive to comply once the appeals case concludes, indicating that a repeal would be necessary if the court ruled against the county.
During citizen comments, Jamie Housley, an attorney of Granite Construction, said a decision should come shortly after oral arguments in his experience, and he asked the county to wait until the appeals case concludes. County Attorney Christine Cook said she was less optimistic about the timing and noted a ruling in the County Council’s favor would not immediately put the county in compliance with state law, as the Growth Board would need time to implement the ruling.
“If the Court of Appeals rules in favor of the appellants, then the procedure is to immediately go to the Growth Board … and ask them for an expedited hearing on compliance on that. No, a court of appeals ruling [itself] does not change the Growth Board’s decision,” Cook said.
Public Works Clean Water Division Manager Devan Rostorfer explained that $2.9 million in state funds for clean water projects could be lost if the county remains noncompliant. She highlighted the county has applied for $1.3 million for stormwater projects, which would require a signature in June next year. If the county is not in compliance at that point, the county will rely on ratepayers for these projects.
“The $2.9 million shortfall, because we can’t apply for grants, we have incorporated in the final rates that will be considered on Nov. 12 [2024],” she said.
A majority of councilors ruled in favor of waiting until the court of appeals makes a decision, with Councilors Sue Marshall and Glen Yung opposing.
During public comments, several county residents expressed concerns about the environmental impacts of mining and criticized the absence of an official study on the matter. Twelve speakers, including members of the Loo Wit Sierra Club and Friends of Clark County, opposed the mining overlay during public comments.
